A statement of fact. Do you *really *wish to call it equivalent to “Obama is a Kenyan Muslim”? :dubious: Is your need to defend whatever any Republican says or does really that innate?
For lying us into a war of aggression that ruined not only another nation but largely our own, among other factual reasons. Do you really wish to claim that *manners *are more important? For God’s sake, man!
Unfortunately for you, yes, it is exactly that. And it’s all you’ve got, being not sharp-eyed enough to see any higher principle than partisan advantage.
Why stop at the system? Afterall, isn’t the problem always the people that inhabit the system? Or better yet, we wouldn’t need a system of govenment if all those damn people didn’t need government in the first place in order to keep them from killing eachother. There can be only one solution: Kill everybody.
Im informed son. Just because I dont partake in thoughtless kool aid doesnt mean Im stupid. In fact, quite the opposite. I dont think alike, I think for myself.
I would ask you to try it, but it is obvious to me you lack the skill set.
Enjoy the Hypocrisy, it seems to be all you have left
No, you’re a lazy piece of shit. And you appear to have very little actual information. Lazy, stupid and arrogant about it.
Ignoring factual information isn’t thinking for yourself. It’s not thinking. We bring facts and you demand that* facts don’t matter*. You are throwing a tantrum, not thinking.
I’ll leave it to the peanut gallery to determine which of us is making an effort to keep informed.
You appear to be implying that . . . he has his . . . head stuffed up his – kidney?
Also:
:eek: that sounds painful I’m being sarcastic
:dubious: I don’t think you’ve actually thought this through
:smack: The anatomical term you wanted was probably closer to rectal rather than to renal
:rolleyes: You’re a moron And yet, you’re a Doper
:o I’m embarrassed for you
:mad: fuck, I’m embarrassed for us. Nice going. Have a nice day, moron.
The syntax appears contradictory as written, so…to clarify, the specific proposals from the Simpson-Bowles National Commission on fiscal Responsibility and Reform were not even part of the debt celing discussion last summer (at least not in public that I can recall). Were gasoline tax hikes discussed? Raising retirement age for collecting social security? Raising payroll taxes? Public option health care? Cutting the federal work force by 10%? These are all proposals from Simpson-Bowles commision discussions. Once again, these proposals will likely be ignored as politically non-feasible by both sides especially prior to the 2012 elections. Do you disagree?
dngnb8, from one hombre to another, I’d advise you to just admit defeat, apologize if you feel compelled to, bow out of this one, and then lay low for a while until it blows over and you feel ready to give it another go.
While Perry vs. US seems to be cherry picked to demonstrate that this isn’t a constitutional issue, I think other text from the case demonstrates the opposite, or at least makes it far less cut and dry. I’m certainly not recommending that it get pushed down this path (I can imagine Scalia’s argument already, silly as it would be), but I think some arguments in Perry could be used to do so.
So in reality, this is not about reducing the country’s debt at all. It’s about threatening default in order to maintain low tax rates for the upper brackets.
Sickening.
[/QUOTE]
Well, the GOP wants to either maintain tax rates or lower them regardless of anything else. Failure to raise the debt celing would force changes in spending appropriations (rather than default most likely). Many GOP members would definitely be on board with that approach as it keeps the debr ceiling from rising, forces spending reduction (in sudden and awkward ways likely), and possibly (at least from some perspectives) makes Obama look bad. For Tea Partiers, a further reduction in the USA’s credit rating and roiled stock markets around the world would just be minor temporary collateral damage in the fight against liberals. I really don’t think it would come to this situation until after the election, when the Dems possibly regain the House and re-shape the dynamics of the next debt ceiling fight for better or worse depending on whom you ask. Remember, the Tea Party caucus largely rejected the debt ceiling raising “Supercommittee” bill that passed last August.
The Dems will gain seats in The House this fall, but I’m not sure if it will be enough to win back a majority. The prospect of this happening suggests to me that Obama and The Senate would prefer to raise the debt ceiling after the next election.
[IIRC], there was some serious discussion of all this last year. Obviously there are some hard mathematical constraints involved: congress would be giving the President orders that are mathematically impossible. So what would he do?
Interest payments and a few federal salaries are constitutionally mandated. If new debt is issued, it wouldn’t be clear whether it was lawful debt: could it really be said therefore to be backed by full faith and credit? Essentially, the President would have to make spending cuts or revenue increases on the fly. Frankly, I don’t see why he couldn’t just cut payments to specific Congressional districts, but some think the Supremes would not look kindly on that approach. [/IIRC]
I clarify: IMO the House Republicans acted unconstitutionally last year and furthermore this opinion is a distillation of sweet reason and germane argument.
The Supremes tend to be reluctant to wander into such inter-governmental and partisan spats and I respect that. So they are loth to sanction the House Republicans for their dereliction of duty. Nonetheless, the language of the 14th amendment is clear: the validity of the public debt of the United States…shall not be questioned. We have an objective measure of the decline in the validity of this debt: S&P downgraded the US from AAA to AA+ following last summer’s antics. It is a constitutional obligation to bring it back up to AAA. House Republicans shirk their constitutionally mandated obligations by pulling stunts like this. QED: my opinion is just, rational and wholly lacking in legal relevance.
Perhaps not, but part of the reason that this is dishonorable is that maintaining the full faith and credit of US debt is not only a moral obligation, it is also a constitutional one. Furthermore it advances the national interest.
The US has a long run problem with debt. But stunts like these really don’t do anything to fix them: for that we need health care reform and a combination of long run spending cuts and tax increases. Democrats are willing to consider entitlement cuts. Republicans won’t countenance tax increases. The problems are not with “Congress”: the problems are with the GOP. Cite: It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism: Mann, Thomas E., Ornstein, Norman J.: 9780465031337: Amazon.com: Books
The way to stop racking up debt is to stop using your Visa.
It’s not use to go to the mall, bring your purcahses to the counter, and then pull out your Visa and say “I’m buying all this stuff, but you can’t actually charge it to my Visa. Just give me the stuff.”
The sentences you quote speak generically of public debt. But the sentence I quoted spoke specifically of what constituted “debt.” It’s true that, standing alone, your quote raises some questions that might be resolved differently. But when you add to the mix the clear statement that debt arises from the exercise of Congress’ power to borrow, not Congress’ power to appropriate, then even the lines you quote no longer avail you.
Correct. I was trying to come up with a good analogy at the household level. This is better than mine, which involved ordering cable and then getting the bill and deciding you couldn’t afford to put it on your Visa, so you weren’t going to pay.
I’m being sarcastic
And yet, you’re a Doper
Have a nice day, moron.